Joint Sponsor Wanted
Jun 30th 2003, 7:24 am
#16
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Originally posted by DCMark
Its fairly clear to me that you are dodging taxes, either through a legitimate job where you don't file US taxes (you are overseas) or through a completely criminal enterprise.
If I am wrong, tell me how. You seem to exist well enough to survive and attract a spouse. If this money was legitimate, such as a trust or inheritance, you could use it for the Affidavat.
So you are do need to suffer the off-topic (in your opinion) questions since you are asking the NG to help you perpetuate your nice scam. At least all indications point there. So tell me how I am wrong.
Its fairly clear to me that you are dodging taxes, either through a legitimate job where you don't file US taxes (you are overseas) or through a completely criminal enterprise.
If I am wrong, tell me how. You seem to exist well enough to survive and attract a spouse. If this money was legitimate, such as a trust or inheritance, you could use it for the Affidavat.
So you are do need to suffer the off-topic (in your opinion) questions since you are asking the NG to help you perpetuate your nice scam. At least all indications point there. So tell me how I am wrong.
D's Angel: I'm certain there must be lawyers less ethical than you. Perhaps through his business contacts, the OP can turn one up. Of course, finding an immigration specialist in the same package.... Ahhhh, the irony of it all.
Guess you know time's ticking down. I'm thinking about you today, kids
mo
Jun 30th 2003, 10:34 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
Originally posted by Dontaskdonttell
>...you might not need a co-sponsor...
Perhaps it's very silly of me, but I tend to have a hard time getting
past any comment in which a joint sponsor is referred to as a sponsor or
co-sponsor. The three are very different.
I'm sure most readers know the difference, but just in case, please
allow me to clarify these terms, as I understand them:
For a K-1 or K-3 visa, the USC fiance or spouse is always the sponsor
(sometimes called the primary sponsor).
Another family member living in the same household as the sponsor may
become a co-sponsor. In this case, all the co-sponsors' incomes are
added together to meet the 125% line.
Any US resident, related or not, may become a joint sponsor. The joint
sponsor must have sufficient income to meet the 125% line on his own, no
matter how close the sponsor gets to it.
If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to correct me.
In my case, as I live alone, a co-sponsor is out of the question.
= = = =
>...you are this touchy about an honest reply to your situation...
There doesn't seem to be any way to politely refuse to discuss a matter
without seeming cold or snotty, and I'm very sorry about that. OK?
> I see this as a problem of what we'll call "undocumented income".
OK, that's a good way to go with it. Let's move on?
>once you want to take advantage of certain institutions
>...you have to play by 'the rules'.
Again, this comment veers away from the topic I'm attempting to raise.
I'm certainly *not* proposing to smuggle my fiancee into the country in
a cargo container; nor do I plan to fabricate a plush income to satisfy
the public charge requirement. The rules say I can get a joint sponsor;
they don't say anything about what I can or must do to get one.
I'm just trying to find out how people have been able to convince others
-- non-relatives, especially -- to assume the burden of being joint
sponsors. There are a million fascinating topics to discuss, but I
started this thread because it is joint sponsorship I'd like to learn
about.
= = = =
> Getting the [joint?] co-sponsor is a matter of inspiring confidence.
This answer is pertinent. And indeed I have certain means at my disposal
to demonstrate to a prospective joint sponsor why he will never be
called upon.
> This *is* a financial deal.
Well, I think it should be. And then, I'd like to know where to go to do
the deal. If I want to borrow cash, I go to a bank or a loan shark. If I
want to bet a horse race, I go to a bookie or I go to the track. If I
want to hedge the risk of killing somebody with my car, I go to an
insurance agent.
Essentially, I want somebody to insure against my fiancee going begging.
Should be straightforward business. Like similar deals, with a price
attached and security offered.
But I've read very few stories about joint sponsors, other than Moms and
Dads. And they all seem to have an extremely casual, unbusinesslike
tone.
Hey, I might *know* you as a man of uncorruptable virtue, but if you
asked me to guarantee to support your family -- for up to 10 years! --
I'd want some solid security, and a goodly sized chunk of cash up front
for the risk. You could die, God forbid, become ill, who knows.
I'm not entirely certain, but the way I read it, if the immigrating
spouse stays for 2 years, there's a Removal of Conditions. Now, at that
point, she can get a divorce, and still retain her right to reside in
US. No? And still come back to the joint sponsor to keep her off
welfare. I can picture half-a-dozen nightmare scenarios.
Frankly, I don't think I *will* get a joint sponsor; I can't imagine
anybody careless enough to assume the risk without compensation, and I
don't know if anybody has had the notion to go into this line of work.
I'll probably have to do something else. *But* I'd like to hear from the
group on this.
>...you might not need a co-sponsor...
Perhaps it's very silly of me, but I tend to have a hard time getting
past any comment in which a joint sponsor is referred to as a sponsor or
co-sponsor. The three are very different.
I'm sure most readers know the difference, but just in case, please
allow me to clarify these terms, as I understand them:
For a K-1 or K-3 visa, the USC fiance or spouse is always the sponsor
(sometimes called the primary sponsor).
Another family member living in the same household as the sponsor may
become a co-sponsor. In this case, all the co-sponsors' incomes are
added together to meet the 125% line.
Any US resident, related or not, may become a joint sponsor. The joint
sponsor must have sufficient income to meet the 125% line on his own, no
matter how close the sponsor gets to it.
If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to correct me.
In my case, as I live alone, a co-sponsor is out of the question.
= = = =
>...you are this touchy about an honest reply to your situation...
There doesn't seem to be any way to politely refuse to discuss a matter
without seeming cold or snotty, and I'm very sorry about that. OK?
> I see this as a problem of what we'll call "undocumented income".
OK, that's a good way to go with it. Let's move on?
>once you want to take advantage of certain institutions
>...you have to play by 'the rules'.
Again, this comment veers away from the topic I'm attempting to raise.
I'm certainly *not* proposing to smuggle my fiancee into the country in
a cargo container; nor do I plan to fabricate a plush income to satisfy
the public charge requirement. The rules say I can get a joint sponsor;
they don't say anything about what I can or must do to get one.
I'm just trying to find out how people have been able to convince others
-- non-relatives, especially -- to assume the burden of being joint
sponsors. There are a million fascinating topics to discuss, but I
started this thread because it is joint sponsorship I'd like to learn
about.
= = = =
> Getting the [joint?] co-sponsor is a matter of inspiring confidence.
This answer is pertinent. And indeed I have certain means at my disposal
to demonstrate to a prospective joint sponsor why he will never be
called upon.
> This *is* a financial deal.
Well, I think it should be. And then, I'd like to know where to go to do
the deal. If I want to borrow cash, I go to a bank or a loan shark. If I
want to bet a horse race, I go to a bookie or I go to the track. If I
want to hedge the risk of killing somebody with my car, I go to an
insurance agent.
Essentially, I want somebody to insure against my fiancee going begging.
Should be straightforward business. Like similar deals, with a price
attached and security offered.
But I've read very few stories about joint sponsors, other than Moms and
Dads. And they all seem to have an extremely casual, unbusinesslike
tone.
Hey, I might *know* you as a man of uncorruptable virtue, but if you
asked me to guarantee to support your family -- for up to 10 years! --
I'd want some solid security, and a goodly sized chunk of cash up front
for the risk. You could die, God forbid, become ill, who knows.
I'm not entirely certain, but the way I read it, if the immigrating
spouse stays for 2 years, there's a Removal of Conditions. Now, at that
point, she can get a divorce, and still retain her right to reside in
US. No? And still come back to the joint sponsor to keep her off
welfare. I can picture half-a-dozen nightmare scenarios.
Frankly, I don't think I *will* get a joint sponsor; I can't imagine
anybody careless enough to assume the risk without compensation, and I
don't know if anybody has had the notion to go into this line of work.
I'll probably have to do something else. *But* I'd like to hear from the
group on this.
You talk as if it's not possible to get a joint sponsor. It is possible. Several people offered to do this for us although in the end we didn't need it. We didn't offer any inducement, as you seem to think is necessary - in fact we didn't even ask them to sponsor us - they offered as soon as they heard we might have a problem. It's not about money. It's about trust. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic but you want people to stick to the point and the point is this: If you don't have people who are in the US and who trust you enough then I'd say this question is going nowhere. You can't pluck a sponsor out of the air and no insurer would touch it, given marriage statistics. Seems to me you need to find an income fast. Why do you ignore the possibility of getting a job as soon as you arrive in the US? I honestly can't see another way through for you. And however many times you ask the question it'll come up the same - BCIS wants to see an income or a co or joint sponsor. If you can't provide the sponsors you need to show an income. The sooner you face that the sooner you can get started. I wish you all the best.
Regards
-=-
Scarlett
Jun 30th 2003, 8:19 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your Joint Sponsor Experiences
OK, I see I have to apologize to the group. Posters are mostly fixating
on "my" personality, when I'm not even real. (I hope this isn't too
philosophical, but you do all realize this is only zeros and ones.) I
shouldn't have phrased the question in the way I did; doing so, I
generated a whole box of debates, all irrelevant.
I'd like to remind everybody that Usenet is full of sweaty 65-year-old
guys in wife-beater tees pretending to be snotty teen girls in pink
panties. Life is really too short to get upset at the way anybody on
Usenet says he or she lives. We just don't know enough.
= = = =
Let me try again:
"Who did you ask? How did you ask? What happened to you?"
My question is addressed to those who have asked anyone -- especially
non-family members -- to joint sponsor. If you have second-hand info,
I'll take that, too.
= = = =
on "my" personality, when I'm not even real. (I hope this isn't too
philosophical, but you do all realize this is only zeros and ones.) I
shouldn't have phrased the question in the way I did; doing so, I
generated a whole box of debates, all irrelevant.
I'd like to remind everybody that Usenet is full of sweaty 65-year-old
guys in wife-beater tees pretending to be snotty teen girls in pink
panties. Life is really too short to get upset at the way anybody on
Usenet says he or she lives. We just don't know enough.
= = = =
Let me try again:
"Who did you ask? How did you ask? What happened to you?"
My question is addressed to those who have asked anyone -- especially
non-family members -- to joint sponsor. If you have second-hand info,
I'll take that, too.
= = = =
Jul 1st 2003, 12:12 am
#19
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,228
Re: Your Joint Sponsor Experiences
Wrong. The vast majority of THIS NG are real people. People who really apply for visas, really get interviewed and really need to find sponsors. We try to help each other with advice and support. Some generally come to care about other's well-being, and yes, even the sanctity of the sysyem (flawed as it may be).
Since you are probably a fraud and refuse to provide any information, you will not get help here. Perhaps you can pay a lawyer to tell you what you want to hear.
Since you are probably a fraud and refuse to provide any information, you will not get help here. Perhaps you can pay a lawyer to tell you what you want to hear.
Originally posted by Dontaskdonttell
OK, I see I have to apologize to the group. Posters are mostly fixating
on "my" personality, when I'm not even real. (I hope this isn't too
philosophical, but you do all realize this is only zeros and ones.) I
shouldn't have phrased the question in the way I did; doing so, I
generated a whole box of debates, all irrelevant.
I'd like to remind everybody that Usenet is full of sweaty 65-year-old
guys in wife-beater tees pretending to be snotty teen girls in pink
panties. Life is really too short to get upset at the way anybody on
Usenet says he or she lives. We just don't know enough.
= = = =
Let me try again:
"Who did you ask? How did you ask? What happened to you?"
My question is addressed to those who have asked anyone -- especially
non-family members -- to joint sponsor. If you have second-hand info,
I'll take that, too.
= = = =
OK, I see I have to apologize to the group. Posters are mostly fixating
on "my" personality, when I'm not even real. (I hope this isn't too
philosophical, but you do all realize this is only zeros and ones.) I
shouldn't have phrased the question in the way I did; doing so, I
generated a whole box of debates, all irrelevant.
I'd like to remind everybody that Usenet is full of sweaty 65-year-old
guys in wife-beater tees pretending to be snotty teen girls in pink
panties. Life is really too short to get upset at the way anybody on
Usenet says he or she lives. We just don't know enough.
= = = =
Let me try again:
"Who did you ask? How did you ask? What happened to you?"
My question is addressed to those who have asked anyone -- especially
non-family members -- to joint sponsor. If you have second-hand info,
I'll take that, too.
= = = =
Jul 1st 2003, 1:00 am
#20
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
meauxna,
One more point, however - it's not only the government that isprotected by the I-864. The alien can also sue under the I-864 and collect support directly. Including the legal fees required to do so.
Some people may not like what they see as DADT's attitude - there are not many Mr. Spocks here - but I think that what he's asking about makes perfect sense. I myself would never ask a good friend or even my closest relative to take on the financial risk of the I-864. I wouldn't want to risk dragging them down with me, and losing my relationship with them, should problems develop.
Something like an insurance policy or a bailbond would make perfect sense for a deal like this. But I doubt there are enough customers to support such a business. To me it makes very good sense to do something like DADT is suggesting - keep financial transactions in the financial world - but most people seem to think first of hitting up their relatives or friends.
Perhaps it's a chicken and egg situation - maybe people would go first to a business solution, rather than a personal solution, if such a business existed.
To veer off into the realm of speculation that some others have taken - I suspect that if DADT's means of support were truly dodgy, or otherwise worth keeping hidden, he'd already know of some person or organization, legitimate or otherwise, who would write him the type of 'insurance policy' he's looking for. Lloyd's of London perhaps?
Regards,
JEff
One more point, however - it's not only the government that isprotected by the I-864. The alien can also sue under the I-864 and collect support directly. Including the legal fees required to do so.
Some people may not like what they see as DADT's attitude - there are not many Mr. Spocks here - but I think that what he's asking about makes perfect sense. I myself would never ask a good friend or even my closest relative to take on the financial risk of the I-864. I wouldn't want to risk dragging them down with me, and losing my relationship with them, should problems develop.
Something like an insurance policy or a bailbond would make perfect sense for a deal like this. But I doubt there are enough customers to support such a business. To me it makes very good sense to do something like DADT is suggesting - keep financial transactions in the financial world - but most people seem to think first of hitting up their relatives or friends.
Perhaps it's a chicken and egg situation - maybe people would go first to a business solution, rather than a personal solution, if such a business existed.
To veer off into the realm of speculation that some others have taken - I suspect that if DADT's means of support were truly dodgy, or otherwise worth keeping hidden, he'd already know of some person or organization, legitimate or otherwise, who would write him the type of 'insurance policy' he's looking for. Lloyd's of London perhaps?
Regards,
JEff
Originally posted by meauxna
You probably understand the way it works, but for those who don't: IF the alien collects means-tested benefits, the government will (eventually/maybe) charge back the sponsor for these funds. If you are no longer married to the alien at that time and default on the charges, the government would then come to the joint sponsor. There has been brouhaha about the fact that the gov't rarely collects on these debts in the first place.
You probably understand the way it works, but for those who don't: IF the alien collects means-tested benefits, the government will (eventually/maybe) charge back the sponsor for these funds. If you are no longer married to the alien at that time and default on the charges, the government would then come to the joint sponsor. There has been brouhaha about the fact that the gov't rarely collects on these debts in the first place.
Jul 1st 2003, 1:07 am
#21
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: Your Joint Sponsor Experiences
DC,
Yes, DADT has left a lot out because he is interested in a specific aspect of the issue of joint or co-sponsorship. It's interesting how you, among others, fill in those blanks with you own assumptions rather than just leave them as blanks, and then proceed to give information and advice that doesn't address the question.
Agreed also that DADT could just as well ignore the advice that is not responsive to his question, but I admire his attempts to keep his thread on track despite the flack he is taking for all sorts of imagined transgretions.
Regards, JEff
Yes, DADT has left a lot out because he is interested in a specific aspect of the issue of joint or co-sponsorship. It's interesting how you, among others, fill in those blanks with you own assumptions rather than just leave them as blanks, and then proceed to give information and advice that doesn't address the question.
Agreed also that DADT could just as well ignore the advice that is not responsive to his question, but I admire his attempts to keep his thread on track despite the flack he is taking for all sorts of imagined transgretions.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by DCMark
Wrong. The vast majority of THIS NG are real people. People who really apply for visas, really get interviewed and really need to find sponsors. We try to help each other with advice and support. Some generally come to care about other's well-being, and yes, even the sanctity of the sysyem (flawed as it may be).
Since you are probably a fraud and refuse to provide any information, you will not get help here. Perhaps you can pay a lawyer to tell you what you want to hear.
Wrong. The vast majority of THIS NG are real people. People who really apply for visas, really get interviewed and really need to find sponsors. We try to help each other with advice and support. Some generally come to care about other's well-being, and yes, even the sanctity of the sysyem (flawed as it may be).
Since you are probably a fraud and refuse to provide any information, you will not get help here. Perhaps you can pay a lawyer to tell you what you want to hear.
Jul 1st 2003, 1:26 am
#22
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
Originally posted by jeffreyhy
To veer off into the realm of speculation that some others have taken - I suspect that if DADT's means of support were truly dodgy, or otherwise worth keeping hidden, he'd already know of some person or organization, legitimate or otherwise, who would write him the type of 'insurance policy' he's looking for. Lloyd's of London perhaps?
Regards,
JEff
To veer off into the realm of speculation that some others have taken - I suspect that if DADT's means of support were truly dodgy, or otherwise worth keeping hidden, he'd already know of some person or organization, legitimate or otherwise, who would write him the type of 'insurance policy' he's looking for. Lloyd's of London perhaps?
Regards,
JEff
As far as the speculation, it is well deserved. He repeatedly states he has "more than enough" to reassure anyone that his fiance will never be a public charge. If it is truly "more than enough", he doesn't need a third party at all - he can just disclose what he has to BCIS on his I-134, assets, income or whatever combination is truly "more than enough". Yet that is precisely what he is trying to avoid having to do. There is 0 legitimate reason why a person whose goings and comings were truly above board would have for that stance. He'd have to make the same disclosure to an insurer/bonding agency/guarantor anyway if it was a truly arms-length transaction, since nobody who is willing to serve as a guarantor but who has no other relationship with the parties is that stupid. He knows this - and that financial disclosure is OK, just not one to the government?
When you show up on an NG with a posting name of "Dontaskdonttell" asking questions about how to convince an arms-length person to put their income on the line for you and your fiance for up to 10 years, when you contend you have more than enough money to make such a guarantor wholly unnecessary but just don't want to put it down where the government can see it, you open yourself up every assumption made about your legitimacy/honesty/criminality.
Jul 1st 2003, 3:32 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Your Joint Sponsor Experiences
dontaskdonttell wrote:
>
> OK, I see I have to apologize to the group. Posters are mostly fixating
> on "my" personality, when I'm not even real. (I hope this isn't too
> philosophical, but you do all realize this is only zeros and ones.) I
> shouldn't have phrased the question in the way I did; doing so, I
> generated a whole box of debates, all irrelevant.
Then why bother to post in the first place? You're bound to get that
kind of thing no matter how short and to the point the questions are. If
you're going to go that far even the zeros and ones are irrelevant.
There is no real meaning and Zen is a better guide than any cheap
Western philosophy
> I'd like to remind everybody that Usenet is full of sweaty 65-year-old
> guys in wife-beater tees pretending to be snotty teen girls in pink
> panties. Life is really too short to get upset at the way anybody on
> Usenet says he or she lives. We just don't know enough.
Sure, but it wasn't always that way. Unfortunately, usenet has been
pretty crap for the last 8 or 9 years, ever since the "aol invasion"
I'm no longer on topic so I will go away now
>
> OK, I see I have to apologize to the group. Posters are mostly fixating
> on "my" personality, when I'm not even real. (I hope this isn't too
> philosophical, but you do all realize this is only zeros and ones.) I
> shouldn't have phrased the question in the way I did; doing so, I
> generated a whole box of debates, all irrelevant.
Then why bother to post in the first place?
You're bound to get thatkind of thing no matter how short and to the point the questions are. If
you're going to go that far even the zeros and ones are irrelevant.
There is no real meaning and Zen is a better guide than any cheap
Western philosophy
> I'd like to remind everybody that Usenet is full of sweaty 65-year-old
> guys in wife-beater tees pretending to be snotty teen girls in pink
> panties. Life is really too short to get upset at the way anybody on
> Usenet says he or she lives. We just don't know enough.
Sure, but it wasn't always that way. Unfortunately, usenet has been
pretty crap for the last 8 or 9 years, ever since the "aol invasion"
I'm no longer on topic so I will go away now
Jul 1st 2003, 4:11 am
#24
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,228
Re: Your Joint Sponsor Experiences
Consider it the price one pays for free advice, some of it from lawyers, the rest from people with experience.
No on has to give advice to this fellow. We may feel we need something in return, and that something may be some assurance we are not helping a criminal.
The post is dead. There is no secondary market for sponsorship. If you cannot find a job, or someone who loves and/or trusts in your and your relationship, you are f**cked.
No on has to give advice to this fellow. We may feel we need something in return, and that something may be some assurance we are not helping a criminal.
The post is dead. There is no secondary market for sponsorship. If you cannot find a job, or someone who loves and/or trusts in your and your relationship, you are f**cked.
Originally posted by jeffreyhy
DC,
Yes, DADT has left a lot out because he is interested in a specific aspect of the issue of joint or co-sponsorship. It's interesting how you, among others, fill in those blanks with you own assumptions rather than just leave them as blanks, and then proceed to give information and advice that doesn't address the question.
Agreed also that DADT could just as well ignore the advice that is not responsive to his question, but I admire his attempts to keep his thread on track despite the flack he is taking for all sorts of imagined transgretions.
Regards, JEff
DC,
Yes, DADT has left a lot out because he is interested in a specific aspect of the issue of joint or co-sponsorship. It's interesting how you, among others, fill in those blanks with you own assumptions rather than just leave them as blanks, and then proceed to give information and advice that doesn't address the question.
Agreed also that DADT could just as well ignore the advice that is not responsive to his question, but I admire his attempts to keep his thread on track despite the flack he is taking for all sorts of imagined transgretions.
Regards, JEff
Jul 1st 2003, 4:11 am
#25
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
Angel,
I was not thinking in terms of posting an immigration bond or something of that nature, I was thinking of getting some one, or more likely some organization, to provide an I-864.
I was also thinking more about the possibility of some specialty business being willing to take on the risk - hence my reference to Lloyd's of London. But your discussion has gotten me to now wonder if an organization, or a juristic person if I'm not mis-using the term, can provide an I-864. Or if an I-864 can only be provided by a person acting as a private person and not as the authorized representative of a business.
As for DADT's inviting all the speculation - I agree with you. But invited or not, it remains irrelevant to the question that was asked. And the question is quite likely relevant to many people who, at the time of preparing their I-864, need a co-sponsor or joint sponsor and would prefer to not put their friends or relatives 'on the hook' if there was a business-backed alternative. It would be worthwhile to pursue that question for the benefit of the wider audience as well as the questioner, rather than concentrate on the questioner's personal details.
As a general principle, one shouldn't have to spill their guts with embarassing personal background, even if it is perfectly legal background, if the background is not relevant to the question.
Regards, JEff
I was not thinking in terms of posting an immigration bond or something of that nature, I was thinking of getting some one, or more likely some organization, to provide an I-864.
I was also thinking more about the possibility of some specialty business being willing to take on the risk - hence my reference to Lloyd's of London. But your discussion has gotten me to now wonder if an organization, or a juristic person if I'm not mis-using the term, can provide an I-864. Or if an I-864 can only be provided by a person acting as a private person and not as the authorized representative of a business.
As for DADT's inviting all the speculation - I agree with you. But invited or not, it remains irrelevant to the question that was asked. And the question is quite likely relevant to many people who, at the time of preparing their I-864, need a co-sponsor or joint sponsor and would prefer to not put their friends or relatives 'on the hook' if there was a business-backed alternative. It would be worthwhile to pursue that question for the benefit of the wider audience as well as the questioner, rather than concentrate on the questioner's personal details.
As a general principle, one shouldn't have to spill their guts with embarassing personal background, even if it is perfectly legal background, if the background is not relevant to the question.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
I question whether this type of risk is "insurable" by a private person for money. While you're allowed to post an immigration bond for non-immigrant purposes, and for deportation purposes, I have not heard that you are allowed to post a "bond" of any kind for immigrant purposes (and insurance is, effectively, a form of bond).
As far as the speculation, it is well deserved. He repeatedly states he has "more than enough" to reassure anyone that his fiance will never be a public charge. If it is truly "more than enough", he doesn't need a third party at all - he can just disclose what he has to BCIS on his I-134, assets, income or whatever combination is truly "more than enough". Yet that is precisely what he is trying to avoid having to do. There is 0 legitimate reason why a person whose goings and comings were truly above board would have for that stance. He'd have to make the same disclosure to an insurer/bonding agency/guarantor anyway if it was a truly arms-length transaction, since nobody who is willing to serve as a guarantor but who has no other relationship with the parties is that stupid. He knows this - and that financial disclosure is OK, just not one to the government?
When you show up on an NG with a posting name of "Dontaskdonttell" asking questions about how to convince an arms-length person to put their income on the line for you and your fiance for up to 10 years, when you contend you have more than enough money to make such a guarantor wholly unnecessary but just don't want to put it down where the government can see it, you open yourself up every assumption made about your legitimacy/honesty/criminality.
I question whether this type of risk is "insurable" by a private person for money. While you're allowed to post an immigration bond for non-immigrant purposes, and for deportation purposes, I have not heard that you are allowed to post a "bond" of any kind for immigrant purposes (and insurance is, effectively, a form of bond).
As far as the speculation, it is well deserved. He repeatedly states he has "more than enough" to reassure anyone that his fiance will never be a public charge. If it is truly "more than enough", he doesn't need a third party at all - he can just disclose what he has to BCIS on his I-134, assets, income or whatever combination is truly "more than enough". Yet that is precisely what he is trying to avoid having to do. There is 0 legitimate reason why a person whose goings and comings were truly above board would have for that stance. He'd have to make the same disclosure to an insurer/bonding agency/guarantor anyway if it was a truly arms-length transaction, since nobody who is willing to serve as a guarantor but who has no other relationship with the parties is that stupid. He knows this - and that financial disclosure is OK, just not one to the government?
When you show up on an NG with a posting name of "Dontaskdonttell" asking questions about how to convince an arms-length person to put their income on the line for you and your fiance for up to 10 years, when you contend you have more than enough money to make such a guarantor wholly unnecessary but just don't want to put it down where the government can see it, you open yourself up every assumption made about your legitimacy/honesty/criminality.
Jul 1st 2003, 4:24 am
#26
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: Your Joint Sponsor Experiences
DC,
Ahhhh...so true.
Yet you felt compelled to give him advice anyway, knowing full well that the advice you were giving didn't address his question -as do so many posters in so many threads, and as I am doing here :-)
And on top of that, you have the nerve to "need something in return" for your unresponsive advice.
Very interesting thought process...
Regards, JEff
Ahhhh...so true.
Yet you felt compelled to give him advice anyway, knowing full well that the advice you were giving didn't address his question -as do so many posters in so many threads, and as I am doing here :-)
And on top of that, you have the nerve to "need something in return" for your unresponsive advice.
Very interesting thought process...
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by DCMark
...
No on has to give advice to this fellow. We may feel we need something in return...
...
No on has to give advice to this fellow. We may feel we need something in return...
Jul 1st 2003, 4:32 am
#27
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
Originally posted by jeffreyhy
Angel,
I was not thinking in terms of posting an immigration bond or something of that nature, I was thinking of getting some one, or more likely some organization, to provide an I-864.
I was also thinking more about the possibility of some specialty business being willing to take on the risk - hence my reference to Lloyd's of London. But your discussion has gotten me to now wonder if an organization, or a juristic person if I'm not mis-using the term, can provide an I-864. Or if an I-864 can only be provided by a person acting as a private person and not as the authorized representative of a business..
Regards, JEff
Angel,
I was not thinking in terms of posting an immigration bond or something of that nature, I was thinking of getting some one, or more likely some organization, to provide an I-864.
I was also thinking more about the possibility of some specialty business being willing to take on the risk - hence my reference to Lloyd's of London. But your discussion has gotten me to now wonder if an organization, or a juristic person if I'm not mis-using the term, can provide an I-864. Or if an I-864 can only be provided by a person acting as a private person and not as the authorized representative of a business..
Regards, JEff
So the only way that listing a joint sponsor would even be allowed is if his I-864 did not hit the income target. Thus begging all the questions already asked.
Jul 1st 2003, 4:45 am
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
> As for DADT's inviting all the speculation - I agree with you. But
> invited or not, it remains irrelevant to the question that was
> asked. And the question is quite likely relevant to many people
> who, at the time of preparing their I-864, need a co-sponsor or
> joint sponsor and would prefer to not put their friends or relatives
> 'on the hook' if there was a business-backed alternative. It would
> be worthwhile to pursue that question for the benefit of the wider
> audience as well as the questioner, rather than concentrate on the
> questioner's personal details.
I would think that the majority of people who require a co or joint
sponsor would not have the means to use a business backed alternative
since the whole reason they need one is because they are below 125% of
the poverty level.
> invited or not, it remains irrelevant to the question that was
> asked. And the question is quite likely relevant to many people
> who, at the time of preparing their I-864, need a co-sponsor or
> joint sponsor and would prefer to not put their friends or relatives
> 'on the hook' if there was a business-backed alternative. It would
> be worthwhile to pursue that question for the benefit of the wider
> audience as well as the questioner, rather than concentrate on the
> questioner's personal details.
I would think that the majority of people who require a co or joint
sponsor would not have the means to use a business backed alternative
since the whole reason they need one is because they are below 125% of
the poverty level.
Jul 1st 2003, 5:02 am
#29
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
Angel,
You're right and wrong - he is at the visa stage, but he said he thought he could conjure up something for the I-134 and was more concerned about what he could do when he got to the point of AOS and needed to provide the I-864.
Anyway, since you're a lawyer you surprise me that you continue to avoid the core question and keep answering based on possible circumstances introduced by speculation. The sponsor's I-864 does not show more than 125% of the poverty guidelines, that's the premise, OK? Can we forget about what DADT's possibly dodgy, possibly just embarassing, situation might be and concentrate on the simple fact that the sponsor doesn't have sufficient income and assets but nevertheless wants to import a foreign fiance(e).
Maybe we have an impatient college graduate who's waiting table at the shore for one more summer fling before beginning a job search that may take a long time in today's economy. Maybe we have me a few years ago, who returned from an overseas consulting assignment where I met my wife, and I'm working part-time as a department store security agent while looking for a new engineering job (which as an over-50 person is not easy despite laws against age discrimination). If me and this college graduate don't have, or don't want to burden, someone to act as a co-sponsor or joint sponsor - do we have any alternatives?
I'm afraid that DC was correct in one of his last posts - we don't, there are no alternatives to a willing friend or relative.
Regards, JEff
You're right and wrong - he is at the visa stage, but he said he thought he could conjure up something for the I-134 and was more concerned about what he could do when he got to the point of AOS and needed to provide the I-864.
Anyway, since you're a lawyer you surprise me that you continue to avoid the core question and keep answering based on possible circumstances introduced by speculation. The sponsor's I-864 does not show more than 125% of the poverty guidelines, that's the premise, OK? Can we forget about what DADT's possibly dodgy, possibly just embarassing, situation might be and concentrate on the simple fact that the sponsor doesn't have sufficient income and assets but nevertheless wants to import a foreign fiance(e).
Maybe we have an impatient college graduate who's waiting table at the shore for one more summer fling before beginning a job search that may take a long time in today's economy. Maybe we have me a few years ago, who returned from an overseas consulting assignment where I met my wife, and I'm working part-time as a department store security agent while looking for a new engineering job (which as an over-50 person is not easy despite laws against age discrimination). If me and this college graduate don't have, or don't want to burden, someone to act as a co-sponsor or joint sponsor - do we have any alternatives?
I'm afraid that DC was correct in one of his last posts - we don't, there are no alternatives to a willing friend or relative.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
The instructions for the I-864, when he gets to that stage (I thought he was at the I-134 stage but if I misspoke, my bad) say that one CANNOT have a joint sponsor if the I-864 facially shows income of more than 125% of the poverty guidelines, unless you are asked for one by an consular or immigration official.
So the only way that listing a joint sponsor would even be allowed is if his I-864 did not hit the income target. Thus begging all the questions already asked.
The instructions for the I-864, when he gets to that stage (I thought he was at the I-134 stage but if I misspoke, my bad) say that one CANNOT have a joint sponsor if the I-864 facially shows income of more than 125% of the poverty guidelines, unless you are asked for one by an consular or immigration official.
So the only way that listing a joint sponsor would even be allowed is if his I-864 did not hit the income target. Thus begging all the questions already asked.
Jul 1st 2003, 5:13 am
#30
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: Joint Sponsor Wanted
Alex,
Maybe. Maybe not.
Like the insurance industry, such a business would be based on collecting a little bit of money from a lot of people and paying out a lot of money to only a few people. I suspect that there is no such business, and the reason is because there aren't enough people who need the service.
If there is a financial services business that would write such a 'policy' as a specialty item then I agree with you - the cost would be prohibitive to the people who need it.
Regards, JEff
Maybe. Maybe not.
Like the insurance industry, such a business would be based on collecting a little bit of money from a lot of people and paying out a lot of money to only a few people. I suspect that there is no such business, and the reason is because there aren't enough people who need the service.
If there is a financial services business that would write such a 'policy' as a specialty item then I agree with you - the cost would be prohibitive to the people who need it.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Alex
I would think that the majority of people who require a co or joint
sponsor would not have the means to use a business backed alternative since the whole reason they need one is because they are below 125% of the poverty level.
I would think that the majority of people who require a co or joint
sponsor would not have the means to use a business backed alternative since the whole reason they need one is because they are below 125% of the poverty level.
